Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T16:35:57.370Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An XXY mouse, the result of a rearrangement between one X and a Y chromosome

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 April 2009

Edward P. Evans ,
George Breckon  and
Josephine Peters
Edward P. Evans*
Affiliation:
Sir William Dunn School of Pathology, University of Oxford, South Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3 RE, UK
George Breckon
Affiliation:
Medical Research Council, Radiobiology Unit, Chilton, Didcot, Oxon OX 11 ORD, UK
Josephine Peters
Affiliation:
Medical Research Council, Radiobiology Unit, Chilton, Didcot, Oxon OX 11 ORD, UK
*
* Corresponding authors.
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

A male mouse with irregular white spotting, typical of piebald, s, arose during an experiment designed to search for mutations induced in spermatogonial cells by ethylnitrosourea (ENU). On being examined cytologically it was found to carry 40 chromosomes but was effectively XXY since one of the two X chromosomes present was distally fused to a Y chromosome. In common with the previously described XXY mice, all of which carried 41 chromosomes, the mouse was sterile with a total absence of germ cells. Because of this, it was not possible to determine if the white spotting was inherited. The spotting could not be related to any observable abnormality of chromosomes known to carry spotting genes, nor could it be linked in any way with the X and Y fusion. It was concluded from the cytological considerations and the time interval (6 months) that had elapsed between mutagen treatment and birth of the offspring, that whereas the spotting was probably the result of ENU damage in a spermatogonial stem cell, the XY fusion was probably a later and spontaneous event.

Type
Research Article
Information
Genetics Research , Volume 56 , Issue 1 , August 1990 , pp. 15 - 19
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1990

References

Beechey, C. V. (1983). Mouse News Letter 68, 69–70.Google Scholar
Breckon, G. (1981). Mouse News Letter 65, 21.Google Scholar
Breckon, G. (1983). Mouse News Letter 68, 23–24.Google Scholar
Burgoyne, P. S. (1982). Genetic homology and crossing over in the X and Y chromosomes of mammals. Human Genetics 61, 85–90.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Burgoyne, P. S. & Baker, T. G. (1984). Meiotic pairing and gametogenic failure. In Controlling Events in Meiosis (ed. Evans, C. W. and Dickinson, H. G.), 38th Syposium of SFEB, pp. 349–362. Company of Biologists, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Eicher, E. M. (1982). Primary sex determining genes. In Prospects for Sexing Mammalian Sperm (ed. Amann, R. P. and Seidel, G. E. Jnr), pp. 121–135. Boulder: Colorado Association University Press.Google Scholar
Evans, E. P., Burtenshaw, M. D. & Cattanach, B. M. (1982). Meiotic crossing-over between X and Y chromosomes of male mice carrying the sex-reversing (Sxr) factor. Nature 300, 443–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, E. P. (1989). In Genetic Variants and Strains of the Laboratory Mouse, 2nd edn (ed. Lyon, M. F. and Searle, A. G.), pp. 577. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Ford, C. E. (1966). The murine Y chromosome as a marker. Transplantation 4, 333–335.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gallimore, P. H. & Richardson, C. R. (1973). An improved banding technique exemplified in the karyotype analysis of two strains of rat. Chromosoma 41, 259–263.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hansmann, I. (1982). Sex reversal in the mouse. Cell 30, 331–332.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Imai, H. T. (1978). Origin of telocentrics in mammals. Journal of Theoretical Biology 71, 619–637.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morris, T. (1968). The XO and O Y chromosome constitution in the mouse. Genetical Research 12, 125–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miklos, G. L. G. (1974). Sex chromosome pairing and male fertility. Cytogenetics and Cell Genetics 13, 558–577.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Muller, H. J. (1940). An analysis of the process of structural change in chromosomes of Drosophila. Journal of Genetics 40, 1–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nesbitt, M. N. & Francke, U. (1973). A system of nomenclature for band patterns of mouse chromosomes. Chromosoma 41, 145–158.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Russell, W. L., Kelly, E. M., Hunsiker, P. R., Bangham, J. W., Maddux, S. C. & Phipps, E. L. (1979). Specific locus test show ethylnitrosourea to be the most potent mutagen in the mouse. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 76, 5818–5819.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sawyer, J. R., Moore, M. M. & Hozier, J. C. (1987). High resolution G-banded chromosomes of the mouse. Chromosoma 95, 350–358.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Searle, A. G. (1981). Chromosome variants. In Genetic Variants and Strains of the Laboratory Mouse (ed. Green, M. C.), pp. 324–357. Stuttgart and New York: Fischer.Google Scholar
Sumner, A. T. (1972). A simple technique for demonstrating heterochromatin. Experimental Cell Research 76, 304–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vianna-Morgante, A. M. & Rosenberg, C. (1986). Deletion of the centromere as a mechanism for achieving stability of a dicentric. Cytogenetics and Cell genetics 24, 5–26.Google Scholar